Reflections on the weekend; thinking about the future

This started as a response on another thread (obviously), but I decided it introduced topics that could support their own thread.

Al DeFlorio wrote:

Lou Heavenrich wrote:
RPI played extremely well especially last two periods - Brown and RPI are two best ECAC teams I have seen this year. (including us so far )

Interesting observations.

The patterns of play in both the Brown and RPI games were similar. Cornell controlled the first period but did not come away with a lead. Both RPI and Brown grew stronger in periods two and three. Not sure what, if anything, to read into that.

I feel good because I feel like Cornell could have, and should have, won both games. It is probably part (mostly?) my Cornell bias, but I felt like we had many more scoring chances in both games that we just didn't cash in. I am also feeling better and better about McKee - if he keeps improving he will be dominant as a senior. He really made some great stops for us against RPI (someone who saw the game can talk about Union).

I also feel like our rotating freshmen on D are still getting their D-I legs. They don't seem to cost us goals, but the cost us time and they seem unable to help the forwards break out. O'Byrne especially shows moments of toughness and brilliance but then goes back to lumbering around.

I especially like that I expect this team to finish 2d or 3d in the conference with a decent chance of both (a) actually pulling off the Cleary and (b) winning the more important Whitelaw. And this is a rebuilding year. I already see '04-'05 as another year to rebuild (losing Vesce, Hornby and Wallace will hurt a lot) but I see great potential for conference-favorite status in '05-'06.

If somebody had offered me 4th place at the start of the season, I'd have taken it. As has been pointed out on a different thread, the main job was to avoid a complete implosion in the wake of the loss of the senior class, and they've done that.

Cornell still has a shot at first place but I am more interested in them working out the kinks and positioning themselves for the post-season. The great thing about a Schafer team is you know when they do lose, they learn from it.

I agree with both of these posts. I saw the game on Saturday and there was a lot to like in the Big Red. I hope that they use this as a learning experience and I hope that the shoulder injuries of which the Coach was quoted on USCHO are not serious.

I notice something interesting about this year compared to last. I'd say our low point of last season was the double dip in Estero at the Everblades. But the high point of late was the championship in Florida. The past four games (sorta including the Harvard game) we haven't taken advantage of the momentum we got from the tournament. I almost think if we'd lost the tournament again, the team might have really come together and been better for league play the last two weeks.

[q]The great thing about a Schafer team is you know when they do lose, they learn from it.[/q]

Exactly...let's hope we're at the low point and can build from here.

I definitely see the team developing and improving everytime I watch a game. This team seems to be coming along much faster than any of us could have hoped for. The end results of the last few games are disappointing, but these losses/ties seem to be a part of the growing pains expected from a rebuilding year.

Yes, we still have a shot at the RS, but that'll be a tall order from this point out. If the team learns from these losses, then I think we could be in pretty good shape come the post season.

For that matter, the ECAC title has been won by a non-#1 seed 26 of 42 times (62%).

Greg Berge '85 wrote:

For that matter, the ECAC title has been won by a non-#1 seed 26 of 42 times (62%).

Including half of ours (67, 80, 86, 96, 97).

I think given what the team had had to work with they are in good shape. They lost important chunks of last year's team, but starting coalescing early and have improved throughout the year. While they are not the 5 loss team of last year, they are still one of the better teams in the conference and the league, and despite being young and having a few kinks still have a team most schools would kill for. Last year's team had played so long that things came naturally, and we could see early this year that the team needed to learn to get in sync (remember that first weekend), and as the year has progressed they have definitely do that in leaps and bounds. Think of next year, all but Wesce/Hornby/Wallace will have a year working together and a very good idea of how to get things done. If this is what the team looks like this year (hey, still only 4 losses), think of the next two years when the classes of 06 and 07 reach their peak. I certainly am excited about that prospect.

Greg Berge '85 wrote:
For that matter, the ECAC title has been won by a non-#1 seed 26 of 42 times (62%).

Does that mean Clarkson was the #1 seed 26 times?

Cowbell Guy wrote:

Greg Berge '85 wrote:
For that matter, the ECAC title has been won by a non-#1 seed 26 of 42 times (62%).

Does that mean Clarkson was the #1 seed 26 times?

LOL.

In fact, Clarkson has won the championship three times in the ten years they were top seed. Their fourth championship came in 1993 when they finished third behind Harvard and RPI in the regular season.

Cornell is five-for-seven as top seed, losing in 1972 to BU and...argh...you all remember the other one.

My impressions from the weekend:

First, the good: I was impressed with McKee. He played a strong positional game and stopped everything he should have (except maybe the second RPI goal) and a few things a lesser goalie might have missed. I think we have good things to come from him.

Now the bad:

We should have easily beaten Union. We outplayed them and outshot them. We blew a two-on-none. We had the winning goal called back on a lame infraction. And Union played way over their heads. But every shot of ours seemed to go right into the goalie's midsection. We played well but couldn't finish.

RPI was much worse. My biggest impression of the team from was they played very tentatively. They passed up shots they could have taken, their passing on the PP against RPI was slow, they never got the cycle going because they were always pinned to the boards.

Don't get me wrong, I thought the officiating was horrendous, too. But we played like a team made up of mostly freshmen and sophomores. They were extremely tentative. They were thinking too much instead of playing on instinct. Hopefully Schafer can get that instinct going by playoff time. Because if not, I can see at least 4 more losses before the end of the season, and we'll be lucky to get a bye.

It doesn't mean we can't get to and win in Albany. But based on the way they played this weekend, I'm not getting my hopes up.

JH

Jeff Hopkins '82 wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I thought the officiating was horrendous, too. But we played like a team made up of mostly freshmen and sophomores.

Not trying to rub it in, but half of the skaters (9 of 18) that RPI dressed were freshmen and sophomores.

ursaminor wrote:

Jeff Hopkins '82 wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I thought the officiating was horrendous, too. But we played like a team made up of mostly freshmen and sophomores.

Not trying to rub it in, but half of the skaters (9 of 18) that RPI dressed were freshmen and sophomores.

I believe 12 of Cornell's 18 (not including goalies) were freshmen and sophomores. But I know what Jeff means.

Correct. 12 of 18.

6 upperclassmen: Vesce, Downs, Hornby, Iggulden, Varteressian, and Knoepfli. But two of them played less than half of last year's games.

7 freshemen, one of whom was playing in his first game, and 5 sophs (including Gleed who might as well be a frosh because of minimal playing time last year).

We're going to make some inexperience-based errors.

JH

Comparing this year to last, don't forget that we pretty much stayed injury-free all season. Currently, we're missing one of our goalies, a couple of defensemen, and after this weekend maybe part of our offense. Some things are beyond anyone's control.

Yes, some things are beyond our control. But some things are under the ref's control.

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, but can't recall seeing an RPI team play like that before. They did a better job getting the puck deep and keeping it there. They played a tough physical game.

I am used to RPI trying to use their speed in transition, and relying on a single dominant line for great scoring, while giving up plenty of great chances. This team beat Cornell in the physical possession & forecheck game. Almost nobody could have beat them at that game a year ago.

This is a better RPI team than most recent versions. With Colgate and Clarkson and RPI all improving year over year, its going to be tough second half of the season devoid of any easy points.

This is the best RIP team since the Fridge began coaching. He seems to have a good assistant coach-or two. ( Perhaps it's former Union player Andrew Will.)

I have also heard there is an unofficial assistant who has helped them with their power play - which at times looked very good on Saturday. Also, to give the Big Red some credit, I think it is worth noting that they scored 5 on 3 and 4 on 3.

Finally, there were three deaths in the RIP community within the last year. This has bonded the team. One of their devoted fans told me that the team last year didn't have a team mentality and many players disliked others on the team.

The bottom line is that they play like a team and it is paying off.

Actually, I've been a little more nervous about Colgate. They've beaten some decent competition, including RIP.

JH

Marty'74 wrote:
This is the best RIP team since the Fridge began coaching. He seems to have a good assistant coach-or two. ( Perhaps it's former Union player Andrew Will.)

I disagree... This year's RPI team may be turning heads, but their team of '97-98 (Healey, St. Hilaire, Garver, Tapper, Laing) was scary. Of course, I may just be saying that because f!@#$king Tapper always killed us.

They had talent back then but they weren't a TEAM. Their style has been absolutely abominable for all of Fridgen's tenure...until this year. The last time they were in the regionals that I can remember was 1995 (from memory-I could be off by a year or so).

I am not sure what has gotten into them this year but it makes me think that the new Bioengineering push at RIP has shown some early rewards and real promise. They did a great job with the brain transplant accomplished on the Fridge.

Marty'74 wrote:

I am not sure what has gotten into them this year

Some RPI fans believe that it's because it's a year ending in '4'. Apparently, RPI has made the NCAA tournament every year ending in '4' for as long as there's been the tournament, with the exception of I believe 1974 when they made the NIT instead. Given their record to date, a conference tournament upset might not be out of the question.

[q]I have also heard there is an unofficial assistant who has helped them with their power play - which at times looked very good on Saturday.[/q] That would be George Morrison, formerly of Denver. IIRC, Morrison was one of the stars of the Denver team that beat Cornell in 1969. See [www.zwire.com]

[q]Some RPI fans believe that it's because it's a year ending in '4'. Apparently, RPI has made the NCAA tournament every year ending in '4' for as long as there's been the tournament, with the exception of I believe 1974 when they made the NIT instead. [/q] That is correct, although RPI refused the invitation to the Hockey NIT. That was the only year it was played.

Thanks, um. My source gave me George with no last name.

Marty'74 wrote:

Thanks, um. My source gave me George with no last name.

Played a couple of years with the Blues after Denver, IIRC. A number of Denver players from that 68-69 team had success in the NHL (Koroll and Magnuson probably the best known), which was unusual at the time.